41/12 The first report stated the future care cost to be $582,128.81. The supplemental report cost is $612,542.86. His opinions are the same in both reports.
43/23 The Plaintiff was accompanied by her husband during Dr. Gonzales’ examination of her.
44/15 He did not interview the Plaintiffs’ children.
44/23 He guesses the Plaintiff’s examination lasted between one and one and a half hours.
45/2 Most of the examination consists of discussing the Plaintiff’s medical history. 15 minutes is devoted to hands-on examination.
45/15 The Plaintiff told him her pain level was 3 out of 10.
46/4 He examined the Plaintiff’s neck and put her through range of motion.
46/11 He did not perform a spurling maneuver because at the time he did not know her full …show more content…
47/11 The Plaintiff’s neurological exam was normal. The Plaintiff’s range of motion was not normal.
48/8 He discusses the importance of knowing the Plaintiff’s medical history and how it may or may not help.
49/6 A patient’s past history may or may not be important in determining what is causing the Plaintiff’s problems.
51/3 He read the radiologist reports but was not provided the films.
51/10 The majority of the time he relies on the radiologist reports because he does not think he would trump their opinions.
51/19 He is trained to the degree a clinician would be to read x-rays himself but not the degree a neurosurgeon would be.
52/13 As far as pre-existing conditions, he was only provided records related to the Plaintiff’s treatment by Dr. Fichtel.
53/1 He does not believe the Plaintiff’s follow up visits after the 2007 surgery were significant to determine causation of the Plaintiff’s post-accident injuries.
53/6 The best evidence to understand the condition of the Plaintiff’s neck immediately before the accident was the CT scan performed in September 2008.
54/22 The only evidence to show that the Plaintiff’s neck condition worsened following the 2007 surgery is the September 2008 CT
43/23 The Plaintiff was accompanied by her husband during Dr. Gonzales’ examination of her.
44/15 He did not interview the Plaintiffs’ children.
44/23 He guesses the Plaintiff’s examination lasted between one and one and a half hours.
45/2 Most of the examination consists of discussing the Plaintiff’s medical history. 15 minutes is devoted to hands-on examination.
45/15 The Plaintiff told him her pain level was 3 out of 10.
46/4 He examined the Plaintiff’s neck and put her through range of motion.
46/11 He did not perform a spurling maneuver because at the time he did not know her full …show more content…
47/11 The Plaintiff’s neurological exam was normal. The Plaintiff’s range of motion was not normal.
48/8 He discusses the importance of knowing the Plaintiff’s medical history and how it may or may not help.
49/6 A patient’s past history may or may not be important in determining what is causing the Plaintiff’s problems.
51/3 He read the radiologist reports but was not provided the films.
51/10 The majority of the time he relies on the radiologist reports because he does not think he would trump their opinions.
51/19 He is trained to the degree a clinician would be to read x-rays himself but not the degree a neurosurgeon would be.
52/13 As far as pre-existing conditions, he was only provided records related to the Plaintiff’s treatment by Dr. Fichtel.
53/1 He does not believe the Plaintiff’s follow up visits after the 2007 surgery were significant to determine causation of the Plaintiff’s post-accident injuries.
53/6 The best evidence to understand the condition of the Plaintiff’s neck immediately before the accident was the CT scan performed in September 2008.
54/22 The only evidence to show that the Plaintiff’s neck condition worsened following the 2007 surgery is the September 2008 CT